See the chart I posted above about how long other investigations have taken. If this were a basketball game, its not even halftime yet given that many of these investigations have gone over six years.

Also, this investigation has already borne out lots of indictments, convictions and guilty pleas. Saying the investigation isn’t going anywhere just because Trump hasn’t been indicted is incorrect. There is a criminal investigation being conducted. Whether it leads to Trump or not, Mueller and his team have uncovered quite a bit of criminal behavior. They are still going through documents and evidence. The president just returned his own responses a few days ago.

The investigation is ongoing. Maybe Trump has clean hands here. But the investigation isn’t just Trump. There are others out there that were speaking with foreign actors. And that’s why this investigation will continue to roll.

Your chart is out of date. Mueller started the investigation in May 2017 so he has been going for one year and a half already. There have been 32 indictments and 26 of those are for Russian nationals that will never be extradited. BTW, the Russians asked for an immediate hearing only to find out the government was not even close to proceed and likely will never see a courtroom. Papadopolous got a 14 day sentence, that is not a typo, it was not not 14 years or even 14 moths but 14 days and costed taxpayers $7M. Manafort and the other guilty pleas were for tax issues that happened before Trump even declared his candidacy and unrelated to any thing Russian or for lying to the FBI about something that was not even illegal.

So far the entire investigation has been a nothing-burger.

If you want loyalty get a dog; better yet, get two just in case one turns on you.

Corsi’s already given Mueller everything he needs to know. Rejecting the plea is just screwing himself and betting on a pardon. He’s told Mueller that he deliberately covered up for Stone, who thought Assange had Podesta’s emails prior to them being released.

How could Stone have possibly known that Assange had them, other that his having contact with Assange? Stone acts like they were being Machiavellian, trying to foresee all ends and head a misunderstanding off at the pass. If he hadn’t been running his mouth about having back channel connections to Assange maybe it would be believable.

Your chart is out of date. Mueller started the investigation in May 2017 so he has been going for one year and a half already. There have been 32 indictments and 26 of those are for Russian nationals that will never be extradited. BTW, the Russians asked for an immediate hearing only to find out the government was not even close to proceed and likely will never see a courtroom. Papadopolous got a 14 day sentence, that is not a typo, it was not not 14 years or even 14 moths but 14 days and costed taxpayers $7M. Manafort and the other guilty pleas were for tax issues that happened before Trump even declared his candidacy and unrelated to any thing Russian or for lying to the FBI about something that was not even illegal.

So far the entire investigation has been a nothing-burger.

I mentioned my chart was a year old in my post. Thankfully, Michael Cohen entered a guilty plea today, so Fivethirtyeight updated their chart this morning.

As you see from the chart, this investigation is still fairly short compared to other investigations.

Your statements indicate you may not be familiar with how investigations of this size and scope work. You start from the outside, and work your way in. That means that generally, the earliest indictments and convictions are for bit players or for things that are only somewhat related to the ultimate probe. They are things that came up as the investigators worked the larger case.

However, as the case gets closer to the center, the bigger players get caught. At this stage, we don’t know how many layers deep the Mueller probe is, or what indictments have been filed under seal. To say its a “nothing-burger” without that information is very premature. There could be a dozen Americans that are under sealed indictment that we know nothing about right now. I don’t know that. You don’t know that.

All I know is that Trump had nothing but good things to say about Michael Cohen a year ago, and now he only hired Cohen “because a long time ago he did me a favor.”

A person is at home one day minding their own business. The police knock on their door. Apparently, there has been a robbery nearby and they want to know where the person was at the time of the crime.

This person did not commit the robbery and does not know who did. However, they do not want to tell the police the truth about where they were because they were engaged in an affair and don’t want their spouse to find out where they were at the time of the crime because they were with their lover. The person lies to the police.

The person gives a sworn statement (subject to perjury) about an alibi.

The police investigation into the robbery continues, but the person’s alibi falls apart (because its based on a lie). Remember, they did not actually commit the crime being investigated, but now the police double back to look into them because their alibi proved to be false. The police ramp up the investigation because they have more and more evidence supporting that this person lied about their whereabouts at the time of the crime. In reviewing the initial alibi, they uncover some other illegal acts (misappropriated funds on their company credit card, false statements on an invoice to cover up expenses for their affair, tax crimes) committed by this individual.

Ultimately, the police determine that this person did not commit the crime. However, their previous statements did subject them to perjury charges. Their other acts also subject them to criminal liability

Under your argument, this person committed no crime, because had the police not been investigating this other crime, they would not have perjured themselves, and their other criminal acts would not have been discovered.

First, I did not say that he individuals did not commit a crime, lying under oath is a crime even if under the circumstance and considering there was no underlying crime it merits a slap on the wrist at most for sheer stupidity.

Now, thank you for making my case with your example in which your individual was found not to have committed the crime being investigated but other unrelated crimes instead. Mueller task was strictly to uncover collusion with the Russians and, while he might have uncovered unrelated crimes (which he really should have referred to local prosecutors) that happen well before Trump was a candidate and for which they should be punished accordingly, no conspiracy with the Russians has been uncovered so far.

If you want loyalty get a dog; better yet, get two just in case one turns on you.

Wow, who are you going to cite next, Vox? CNN? I can cite a number of publication that indicate that Mueller’s primary mandate is to determine if there was a conspiracy with Russians. How tax issues for some of the indicted individuals that happened long before Trump even considered running would be related to a conspiracy are beyond his charter and should have been referred to local authorities instead of wasting time and resources but then, he has to have something…anything…to show for all the time and money spent even if it is completely unrelated to his primary task.

If you want loyalty get a dog; better yet, get two just in case one turns on you.

As are the expenses on golf, political campaigning and self-serving extravagancies of Trump. I don’t think we’ve ever had a more self-indulgent president… and he has no hesitation to spend taxpayers’ money.

Would love to see the totals of the investigation next to the money he has burned through since taking office.

Thing is, we don’t know if Trump was involved or not. We do know that he originally said he had no business dealings with Russia, but that turns out to have been false.

That’s what makes Cohen’s plea such a big deal. It’s not just that Cohen admitted he lied - he admitted that he lied about there being no business connection with Russia.

The president had to submit answers regarding his business ties to Russia. Did he admit to those ties, or did he submit false statements?

There has been evidence from the beginning that Trump had some business relationships with Russia at the very minimum. If he wanted this thing over, he could have admitted as much back in 2016 during the campaign, particularly since, assuming the deals were all legitimate and legal, it would not have been criminal to have those relationships.

So why lie about a legal thing? That’s the question that you have not (and likely cannot) answer. Why lie?

My scenario gave one potential explanation - that there is something highly embarrassing that would be revealed by the truth. There have been allegations that Putin has a compromising video of Trump that he could use as leverage.

But there’s another scenario out there, one that involves not just embarrassment, but outright criminal behavior. That’s what Mueller is investigating.

So far, all we know for sure is that the president, and everyone around him apparently lied about legal activity for (if you believe the president anyway) absolutely no reason at all.

That doesn’t make sense.

The investigation will continue.

But its becoming more and more likely that there’s something at the bottom of this rabbit hole that Donald Trump really doesn’t want the world to know about.

You are assuming facts not in evidence. Trump never said he did not have dealings with Russia, he always indicated he considered building a luxury hotel in Moscow where the big money is nowadays and as a developer, this is what he did for a living before becoming a candidate. Once the became a candidate the project was halted and the only disagreement is the date but nothing illegal was done since the project never happened in the first place. I grant you that it was stupid of some people to lie about something that was perfectly legal but if this is all Mueller has to show then the entire fishing expedition has been a waste.

This is what famous lefty but well respected attorney and constitutional law professor had to say:

"Dershowitz slammed the special counsel for having to “resort to false statement prosecutions,” arguing it shows Mueller “didn’t start with very much” to begin his investigation." "

”I think the weakness of Mueller’s substantive findings are suggested by the fact that he has to resort to false statement prosecutions, which really shows that he didn’t start with very much, and that the very fact that he’s conducting an investigation has created these crimes,” Dershowitz told Bill Hemmer. “These are not crimes that had been committed prior to his appointment, they’re crimes that were committed as the result of his appointment, and that raises some questions about the role of special prosecutors in creating crimes, or creating opportunities for crimes to be committed.”

“In the end, I don’t think Mueller’s going to come up with very much, in terms of criminal conduct, that existed before he was appointed, and that’s pretty shocking,” added Dershowitz.

If you want loyalty get a dog; better yet, get two just in case one turns on you.

@JayHawkFanToo You seem to love Dershowidiot when he is fawning for The Donald’s corral, but I think you will find few attorneys holding him in the esteem he may have held previously. Especially since, as you point out sine fine, he gave a blanket absolution to Manafort because anything he did wasn’t a crime and because everything was allegedly all before the campaign began anyway, and never acknowledged the guilty pleas to crimes committed in '16 and '17. Nor did you.

Honestly, it’s pointless to go back and forth on this with you because you will back whatever story the president and his handlers put out next, even if it contradicts things they have said previously.

You’re entitled to your opinion, obviously, and I respect that. But ultimately, this investigation will roll on because there’s a ton of smoke, and while we can’t see the fire yet, there are a lot of people that are starting to act like their seats have gotten a lot warmer lately.

I never said Manafort was not guilty of the tax issues to which he pleaded guilty, all I said that those “personal tax issues” happened long before he was involved in the Trump campaign and were not related to the campaign. If you are going to quote me at least do it honestly and don’t make up words I did not say, otherwise your argument becomes vox nihili. Ab abusu ad usum non valet consequentia

It is the equivalent of KU hiring an law firm to investigate if Coach Self was aware of the payments to DeSousa and in the course of the investigation information comes up that one of the assistant coaches did not pay taxes long before he was hired by KU and then try to blame Coach Self for it. It is nonsensical.

By the way. I quote Dershowitz because he is a very liberal democrat. I could quote numerous other attorneys that share his opinion but none are quoted by the MSM and if I cite, God forbid, a conservative source, liberals get their panties in bunch and cry foul…just like you just did.

If you want loyalty get a dog; better yet, get two just in case one turns on you.

I agree that eventually we will see the results of the investigation, although with the Democrats in charge of the House it might last at least another 2 years. In the meantime we can agree to respectfully disagree.

If you want loyalty get a dog; better yet, get two just in case one turns on you.

Guys and Gals I think I’m going to bow out on these discussions. I don’t mind a good debate. Yet I’m not sure this is what we are doing. Not one of you Not even you @approxinfinity said anything when Hillary cheated Bernie Sanders for the DNC nomination, Destroyed her server, and even bleached washed it? Lets not forget in all this Russian hacking why Didn’t the DNC turn over their servers to the FBI when they asked? Why? UM nothing to see there? I get you hate Trump. You Continue on, but I’m stepping out. Let me know when your willing to hold your own people/party to the same standards you hold Trump and Conservatives too.

@DoubleDD this section was created in July 2017. I was not happy that the democrats screwed Bernie but that predated this category. I never liked Hillary. I don’t consider myself a Democrat. I do want politicians to be accountable and I don’t believe anyone is above the law.

I fully endorse your decision to take some time off from the category and get some perspective. see you on the hardwood threads

@DoubleDD this section was created in July 2017. I was not happy that the democrats screwed Bernie but that predated this category. I never liked Hillary. I don’t consider myself a Democrat. I do want politicians to be accountable and I don’t believe anyone is above the law.

I fully endorse your decision to take some time off from the category and get some perspective. see you on the hardwood threads

This may true what you say? Yet if Russian Collusion is the Flavor? Where did it start? Hillary’s server? So if your so about getting to the bottom of the truth? Why are you not banging against the Dem party for not turning over their server? I mean you say you want to get to the bottom of things. Yet you have said nothing about such Dem Server. Why is that? Isn’t that a key part of the investigation? I mean if a Dem server started Russian hacking and accusing Trump of Collusion. Then why not turn over the server?

OH crunch the numbers, a US president can make way more money than some Trump Tower in Moscow. Just facts? Which btw can’t be proven by the DNC FBI trying to prove something that isn’t there.

You talk about being fair and wanting the truth? Why wasn’t Muller ready to prosecute the Russians he accused? Yea there was a Russian that wanted to go to a USA court to challenge the great Muller accusations. Yet for some reason the great Muller wanted nothing to do with that? Why is that? Just asking questions.

Just my last words on this issue. Have a good time Hating someone you can’t prove nothing, but are more than willing to look the other way when it comes to someone that represents you. Just admit it you voted Hillary. You looked the other way my friend you know you did.

Guys and Gals I think I’m going to bow out on these discussions. I don’t mind a good debate. Yet I’m not sure this is what we are doing. Not one of you Not even you @approxinfinity said anything when Hillary cheated Bernie Sanders for the DNC nomination, Destroyed her server, and even bleached washed it? Lets not forget in all this Russian hacking why Didn’t the DNC turn over their servers to the FBI when they asked? Why? UM nothing to see there? I get you hate Trump. You Continue on, but I’m stepping out. Let me know when your willing to hold your own people/party to the same standards you hold Trump and Conservatives too.

I voted for Gary Johnson because I thought he was the most trustworthy of the candidates.